Randy White

[Barry Marsden, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we in British Columbia are very proud of Barry Marsden. Barry is the chairman and CEO of Cascade Aerospace.

Barry recently received an award for outstanding achievement in aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul. He is acknowledged for his vision for building a state of the art purpose built aircraft maintenance, repair, overhaul and modification facility which opened in my riding in Abbotsford, British Columbia.

Our city has now caught the eye of Southwest Airlines and Continental Airlines. This has enhanced the economics of our area considerably.

Barry's success as one of the founders of Conair, of which he is president and CEO, could have stopped at that point, but real leaders strive for excellence all the time.

We in Canada can be very proud of Barry Marsden, for he is the kind of person true Canadian entrepreneurs are made of: energy, innovation, dedication and foresight.

[Justice, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard it all. The government has penalties in place but no way to assess the reason why it gives the penalties. That is brilliant.

Yesterday the justice minister would not explain why young people pay a smaller fine for the possession of marijuana than others. Again, what message does he think he is giving to Canadians when he is assessing young people a smaller fine than other people for the possession of drugs? What is the message he thinks he is sending?

[Justice, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the real problem here is there is no national drug strategy in Canada. In fact the current impaired driving laws are not effective for marijuana.

The Ontario police are testing the potalyzer which assesses marijuana use but it is not ready yet. If it is not ready yet, why does the government implement a marijuana decriminalization plan when the assessment measures are not available for roadside assessment of driving while under the influence of drugs? Why is that?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the issue of the budget implementation but I want to take a different approach to the issue. I want to talk about some of the things that were missing out of the budget. One of them in particular is some money to revise the whole justice system, the court system.

I want to speak to a particular issue that needed to be addressed across this land and I guess by giving one specific example it would help a great deal.

I want to tell members about a young girl by the name of Carley Regan. She was 13 years old when she was killed on January 6. She was run down by a driver who was actually under suspended licence. He should not even have been on the road.

Carley's parents, Barry and Lori, have gone through a living hell on this issue, in and out of courts. I can recall when we first went into court and met the crown counsel I specifically asked if, down the road, he would be plea bargaining anything without the family knowing about it. He specifically said there would be no plea bargaining in the case, that it was clearcut and so on. That kind of went by the way and then the court case started.

The individual who was driving while suspended was jailed for 14 months and had his licence suspended for 10 years.

Lo and behold, now the crown counsel has said that the big charge of dangerous driving has been dropped. This was the charge for which this fellow could have done some serious time. I am certain that plea bargaining took place because the crown had actually said that there was not have enough evidence.

This was a guy who admitted in the courtroom that he was at the scene. He admitted to driving while suspended. More important, the witnesses talked about the individual being at the scene of the crime and so on .

Once again we find in this system where justice is no justice at all. We see a fellow who has killed a 13 year old child and he receives a 14 month maximum sentence. That is basically one month for every year of Carley's young life. I find that not only disturbing but such an injustice. I know Barry, Lori and the rest of the family feel the same way. This is what happens time after time in this country.

I just do not know where this will all end but it is up to the government and to all politicians to come up with legislation to stop this carnage on the roads. We need to make sure there are mandatory sentences. We need to make sure people do not just walk into a court after killing somebody and then walk out with their driver's licence suspended and a very minor time in jail.

This whole issue of plea bargaining has to be revamped. More often than not victims are never told, as they were not in this case. They were just told the day before it was all announced. They were never told about the process that was going on behind closed doors. They were never told that their child's life was basically handled in the courtroom of injustice by a mere 14 months in jail for somebody who should never have been on the road in the first place.

I want to emphasize once again the seriousness of this situation which should have been addressed in the budget implementation by way of at least studying this whole issue.

I want to talk about Christopher Tubbs for just a minute. On October 11, 1999, my constituent, Christopher Tubbs, and his mother, Maureen, were hit by a driver who was speeding and ran a red light in one of the busiest intersections in Vancouver. Chris' mom was killed and he was seriously injured. The offender ran from the scene and was caught two months later speeding in yet another stolen vehicle. He had several prior criminal convictions. The carnage goes on and on without stopping.

Chris's comments are long and I will only repeat a couple of them. He said:

How can anyone call a crime of this nature criminal negligence? That sounds like a teenager out at night pulling a prank that went wrong and someone died. What happened to my mom and me was just plain having no regard for human life. With the speeds involved, running red lights, he was out to hurt someone.

I do not know what it is going to take to get the government to take a real indepth look at the problems involved on our roads and to get the judges and lawyers in our courtrooms to understand that what victims want is a modicum of justice. They do not want deals to be made. They do not want plea bargains to be made behind closed doors where the victims and their families do not know what is going on. They want to be involved. That is why I wrote the national victims bill of rights in the first place back in 1994. We received a little attention from the government, but the real problems are still going on.

The way to do this is to get it out of the government's hands because it just does not have the propensity to enact minimum sentences. It does not have the philosophical bent to charge and convict people who run down children when they should not be on the road in the first place. It is murder. It cannot be called an accident. People who drive on the road when they do not have a driver's licence or people who drive on the road under the influence of drugs or alcohol are individuals who are deliberately taking lives. That is murder and it has to be treated as such. We cannot continue in this country just to listen to the rhetoric in the courtrooms from lawyers who time and time again think more of the criminal than they do of the victim.

My sympathies go out to the family. It does not mean much from one politician or even the whole House of Commons when one loses their daughter. It is sad that we in the House of Commons have to watch time and time again young people losing their lives and families losing their loved ones, when all we in the opposition can do with a majority government is beg it to re-look at the laws of this nation and give victims their just due in the courtrooms of the country, and try to make our roads safer.

The idea that some lawyer or some judge said that the charge of dangerous driving was being dropped because there was not enough evidence when in fact that very person had been charged and had lost his licence for 10 years and had been jailed for 14 months for the same accident that occurred, yet crown counsel had the unmitigated gall to convince the rest of us out here that there was not enough evidence, I am ashamed of the system that we call a justice system. I have always thought that people deserved better than that.

More important, we have to remember this and try to do our best. I sincerely hope that Barry and Lori and the rest of the family go on, but I also hope that they will understand that things will change eventually when we move that government out.

[Marijuana, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is 2003, thousands have died from overdoses in the country and they are talking about a national drug strategy now.

Marijuana by itself or in a combination with alcohol can produce a deadly potion when driving a vehicle. A recent Ontario survey indicated that 20% of the students drove a vehicle within two hours of smoking pot.

Will the government table a roadside assessment process and regulations for marijuana at the same time as it brings in decriminalization of marijuana?

[Marijuana, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it does appear that we did manage to convince the government that decriminalization of marijuana should not be 30 grams but something less.

Decriminalization of marijuana is but a small part of a national drug strategy. The government has been without a coherent national drug strategy for 10 years.

Why has a national drug strategy not been put in place prior to the announcement of the decriminalization of marijuana?

[National Police Week, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join all my colleagues in saluting the men and women who protect our families and communities on a daily basis.

As part of the celebration of National Police Week from May 11 to 17, officers from across Canada will be participating in numerous activities promoting the concept of police and community working together to promote safety and security. They will showcase the latest in equipment and technology used on the front lines in the thankless job they do.

This is also National Road Safety Week. The RCMP and local police forces are joining together to target impaired driving, use of seat belts, intersection safety and unsafe driving.

I urge my fellow Canadians to support their police not only this week but every week. My congratulations to the Abbotsford police and the RCMP for a job well done in my area of Langley--Abbotsford.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 29th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address this bill in the House because it has some serious implications to some of the inequities that are created between Canada and the United States, and I want to go through those.

Bill C-33, an act to make an attempt to transfer inmates from prison in one country to another. I listened to a Liberal member across the way talk about the great things the government had done, particularly on the sex offender registry. I was the author of that registry three years ago and my party and I for two years in the House lobbied the other side to try to get a sex offender registry. There was absolutely zero appetite for it until the police, opposition, victims and every other group in the country basically forced it on the government. Now they are here today bragging how well they have done on the sex offender registry.

I want to tell the House that the people from British Columbia in Langley, Aldergrove and Abbotsford and in other areas are well aware of this. I really think it is degrading the way the government takes responsibility for these things when it is rammed down its throat.

However let us talk about the inequality of law between Canada and the United States. I want to relate it to the problems with transferring inmates.

The government is suggesting that we could take inmates from the United States and transfer them into Canada. If this happens, they would serve the lighter sentence in a Canadian prison. Basically we would have someone who is convicted of a sex offence in the United States. An agreement could be struck among the offender, Canada and the United States to transfer the sex offender across to our country because he was of Canadian nationality.

The first problem is the offender would get a lot more time in the United States than he would in Canada. He would get a lighter sentence automatically in Canada. Second, there are sex offender registries in every state in the United States on which this individual would be entered. Coming into Canada he would not be on a sex offender registry.

I do not understand the logic which comes across here other than this is entirely to the benefit of criminals and not victims. It is entirely to the benefit of criminals and not regular law-abiding citizens in Canada to bring a sex offender back into Canada, give him a lighter sentence, get him paroled and get him on the street with programs that are not compatible between Canada and the United States whilst incarcerated. Essentially a sex offender could come across into our country, not be on a registry, not be rehabilitated and get back out on the street. If that is what this country thinks we need, then I can only express my sincere disappointment once again on the problems associated with that.

Another case is the growing inequity between Canada and the United States and our drug laws. Canada is headed into a European model related to drugs. There is no question about that. The government already has started to endorse pilot projects for injection facilities for hard drugs, which is not acceptable to the vast majority of people in our country. Certainly there will be no support for that kind of process in my riding, in Walnut Grove, Abbotsford and Mount Lehman.

On one side of the international border we have a liberalized drug law based on a European model that is failing, not progressing.

Some Canadian who goes down to the United States and traffics cocaine or whatever could get 10 years. We make a deal to bring the trafficker back. In Canada that individual would likely get two years, maybe three at the most, but probably a fine, if we could find a judge who was not so Liberal that he would hand out a sentence.

What do we do? That individual who has trafficked cocaine to children in the United States, receives a 10 year sentence, moves back to Canada and gets out practically when he gets back into the country. I sincerely hope some thinking has gone about the legislation because these inequities certainly exist. In fact the legislation states that a Canadian offender is to serve only the shorter sentences.

There is a misguided idea that there is a compatible legal system within countries when there is not. This is because Liberals have been elected in the last three elections. We have a Liberal judicial system and Liberal courtrooms. We also have liberalized laws which are far different from most other countries. We are going to fail our people as a result of these transfers.

There is one other problem in this legislation, and it is under clause 38. It states, “This act applies in respect of all requests for transfer that are pending on the day that this section comes into force”. In other words, it is retroactive

I just do not get it. I do not understand why one piece of legislation, Bill C-33, the transfer of offenders legislation, is retroactive but the government does not have the wherewithal to make the sex offender registry retroactive. The sex offender registry is vastly more important than this legislation.

The sex offender registry, as I wrote it and the government adopted it, states that we will register all markings like tattoos, telephone numbers, addresses, all personal information of sex offenders. The government has to take all that information and ensure that it is updated by virtue of mandating individuals to complete the registration. If they do not update it voluntarily, then after a year if there have been changes and they are not reported, there will be some serious fines or possible imprisonment.

The problem is the government has said that all sex offenders in provincial or federal jurisdictions will not be on the register when it becomes law. That amounts to approximately 5,000 federal inmates and 5,000 provincial inmates, all sex offenders, none of whom will be on the registry on opening day because the government has not seen fit to make the registry retroactive.

I do not understand why an important piece of legislation like the sex registry, which is vital and valuable to the Canadian population, would not be made retroactive but this legislation, which is really not that important quite frankly, will be retroactive.

The implications on the sex offender registry are this. Sex offenders who are currently in prison and who have an extremely high recidivism rate could actually perpetrate yet another sex crime, get convicted, do their time in prison again before they would be put on the registry. That is one free sexual assault per every single sex offender held in prison today. That does not make any sense whatsoever. I can guarantee that the people I represent in Abbotsford, Langley and throughout the Fraser Valley cannot understand that either.

I will take this information back to my constituency and let them know. Yes, they will be upset and there will not be a Liberal elected there for decades I am sure. However the biggest problem is that because of the majority in the House of Commons this is the way it is going to be. I do not really think there is a Liberal across the way who can really justify the sex offender registry not being retroactive. I just do not believe in their own hearts they would comply with that.

The job is to challenge the members across the way to get into the justice committee and make that change without fear of reprisal from their government. I ask the members across the way to have the courage of their convictions because like the bill we are debating, some of the things we do in committee after they are assessed and evaluated are just as important as the tabling of the bill itself.

Therefore what have we got? We have a bill in front of us that is not as important as most bills and we have a bill in front of us with several serious flaws, not the least of which is the state of our prison system in Canada. I do not believe there is anyone in the House who is any more familiar with that than I am.

The fact of the matter is our prison system is not the most effective system. It is a liberal system but we have recidivism rates that are unacceptable. We have something labelled and identified called rehabilitation that does not work. We have more charges against guards than we do against the criminals themselves. Inmates have too much idle time in prison, not working if they do not want to work, not working for any amount of time that they put in. They are basically warehoused. This is not a productive system in my opinion.

Therefore we go to the United States or any other country and say, “Bring in an inmate and we will transfer him into our system”. Yes, he gets less time. Yes, he is idle. Yes, he is put out on the street and not rehabilitated. Yes, he has very likely been hooked on drugs. If he goes in clean in our prison, he comes out hooked on drugs.

I guess maybe the inmate who is in another country would like to come here because it is a soft touch. However I certainly do not think other countries would be all that willing to let inmates come into this country because they really would not serve the time properly.

The final point of this is that to make a transfer we need the consent apparently of the inmate, of the state that is receiving and the state that is sending but again the government did not include victims. Nowhere does the victim get any say whatsoever on this. Shame on the government. It is another piece of legislation that is not worth the paper on which it is written.

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thought you might see it that way. They are not all in committee, by the way. They are eating on the other side.

The point that I want to make on my colleague's comments is that I think there are two things that are relatively minor to the government, I would say, and those members should not go too far or I will call quorum again. There are two items. One is that the government wants to tell the airport authorities to have a Canadian flag. Every airport authority is going to have that, but for a government to say there must be a flag it makes one wonder how much authority and autonomy it actually wants these airports to have, as if they could not figure that out themselves.

The other thing is that in clause 101 the government is saying that it requires the minister's written consent for an airport's name to be changed; so much for having an airport named after anyone but a Liberal. If the Abbotsford airport wants to change its name, it should have the right to do so. We have no intention of coming here to Liberal land and obtaining approval from the government to put a Liberal name on what is basically a Canadian Alliance community. Politicians notwithstanding, that kind of stuff is a load of hogwash. It just goes to show how much autonomy and authority the government does not want these independent airlines to have.

I want to thank my colleague for that question. I do invite questions from the Liberals who tabled this legislation and are supposed to have enough members in the House to have a quorum.

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat of a principled thing, as this is a piece of legislation from the government. I heard one of the members over there saying I am wasting people's time. Can anyone imagine a government putting a piece of legislation like that in the House--